1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of telecommunications. More particularly, the present invention relates to routing calls, placed to a toll-free telephone number, pursuant to a customized menu routing service.
2. Acronyms
The written description contains acronyms that refer to various telecommunications services, components and techniques, as well as features relating to the present invention. Although some of these acronyms are known, use of these acronyms is not strictly standardized in the art. For purposes of the written description, the acronyms are defined as follows:                Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)        Automatic Number Identification (ANI)        Carrier Identification Code (CIC)        Customized Menu Routing (CMR)        Dialed Number Identification Service (DNIS)        Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF)        Electronic Key Telephone System (EKTS)        Extensible Markup Language (XML)        Federal Communications Commission (FCC)        HyperText Markup Language (HTML)        HyperText Transfer Language Protocol (HTTP)        Interactive Voice Response (IVR)        International Telecommunication Union (ITU)        Local Access and Transport Area (LATA)        Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)        North American Numbering Plan (NANP)        Numbering Plan Area (NPA)        Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)        Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)        Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC)        Service Control Point (SCP)        Service Management System (SMS)        Service Switching Point (SSP)        Signaling System 7 (SS7)        Signaling Transfer Point (STP)        Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)        Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP)        Uniform Resource Locator (URL)        
3. Background Information
Customer involvement in building and managing call services has increased since the availability of intelligent network services, such as advanced intelligent network (AIN) services. Customers of services involving toll-free numbers, such as 800 and 888 numbers, likewise have a need to build and manage their portfolio of toll-free numbers to efficiently handle incoming calls. However, toll-free number customers are subject to numerous restrictions, some of which are not apparent due to the nature of toll-free numbers and their associated terminating directory numbers, such as plain old telephone service (POTS) numbers.
For example, a customer may contract with a toll-free number service provider for service in a limited number of states. However, when the customer builds its toll-free service, it may attempt to associate a toll-free number with a directory number in a state or region for which it has not contracted. This would result in calls being blocked when termination is attempted within the unauthorized state or region, causing frustration to the customer, as well as the customer's clientele. On the other hand, a customer may fall within an exception to a general call blocking rule, but not take advantage of the exception because either it does not know of the exception or the network does not properly implement the exception (e.g., the customized service was not built properly).
Call blocking and other limitations (as well as exceptions to the limitations) may result from regulatory parameters that may not be well known to the general public, including the customers. For example, in 1983, the Bell System was disbanded into a number of regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), based on a divestiture agreement between the Federal Government and AT&T. Since that time, numerous regulatory precautions have been enacted to prevent unfair competition by the RBOCs against competitors entering the marketplace. One precaution prohibited RBOCs from offering long distance services to their own local customers, although the RBOCs were free to offer long distance service to customers outside their local service areas.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided limited relief, however, entitling the RBOCs to enter the long distance market in their own localities under certain circumstances. For example, in order for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to grant a RBOC permission to offer in-region inter-LATA (local access and transport area) services, the RBOC must complete a competitive checklist, including the following: (i) there must be an agreement with an existing competitor for the RBOC's local service, or (ii) if no competitor has come forward, there must be a statement indicating that the RBOC is ready to provide access and interconnection for potential competitors in the local market. Access and interconnection is generally defined to include, for example, access to RBOC poles, conduits and rights-of-way, number portability, dialing parity, reciprocal compensation arrangements and availability for resale. In other words, the FCC regulations do not allow a RBOC to enter the long distance market in their own locality, unless there is evidence of a viable, independent competitor in the local market, or the RBOC has committed to terms and conditions under which it is ready and willing to offer the components of the competitive checklist.
As an additional safeguard, Section 272 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires RBOCs to use separate affiliates to offer their local customers long-distance services, including, for example, long-distance telephone, telecommunications, and information services. To constitute a separate affiliate, an entity must meet certain requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, establishing a minimum threshold of operational and business independence.
Therefore, when a customer of a RBOC associates a POTS number in the RBOC's local service area with a toll-free number acquired from the RBOC, calls to that toll-free number will be blocked upon attempted termination to the POTS number, for example, based on the numbering plan area (NPA) and exchange (NXX). When the customer is classified as a separate affiliate, then it falls within the exception and the blocking can be overridden to terminate toll-free calls to the local POTS number. However, enabling the customer to control and manage its toll-free services presents difficulties in implementing and maintaining the proper blocking and blocking override criteria. Therefore, such blocking and overriding parameters are not included in conventional customer managed toll-free number services.
Furthermore, conventional customer managed toll-free number services are directed to establishing routing criteria and routing toll-free calls originating domestically (i.e., within the United States or Canada). Because many customers desiring toll-free call management services are situated in global markets, calls to toll-free numbers originating in non-domestic countries are anticipated. However, these calls are either treated in the same manner as domestic calls (after appropriate translation for domestic routing) from a customized routing point of view, or customized routing is simply not available. Further, where toll-free calls originating non-domestically are routed along with domestic calls, as established by the customer, the callers may ultimately be frustrated by language or cultural barriers when the calls are answered by incompatible attendants or interactive voice messaging systems.
The present invention overcomes the problems associated with the prior art, as described below.